Here comes into picture the importance of the constitutional function embedded in the Constitution to be enforced by the courts, to be assimilated by the population, the importance of meaning of Bharath. If all citizens of this country consider as one Nation, having one object in life, at the same time, following their own religions, precepts, their own language tenements, and the cultural propagation within the bounds of Bharatiya, can these Minority Institutions under Article 29 and 30 of the Constitution of India can be said that they are in any way misused with regard to nationalism.. Administration is responsible if there is any misuse of these Articles.

Approach by the Hon’ble Supreme Court:

Apex court has continuously held that these two Articles are Protective and Protective only are not in conflict and they are not intended for any special identity of citizens of Bharath in the administration of the country or in the following of their faiths or in their personal lives. Without going into various Judgements of the Apex Court the leading case on this aspect is T.M.A Pai
Foundation & Others (Petitioners) Vs. State of Karnataka & Others (Respondents) 2002(8)Scale. In this judgement, it was held in paragraph 161, page 61 in the answer “Linguistic and religious minorities are covered by the expression “Minority” under Article 30 of the Constitution. Since reorganization of the states in India has been on linguistic lines, therefore, for the purpose of determining Minority, the unit will be the State and now the whole of India.” It was held in this judgement at page 34 para 86 “moral education disassociated from any denominational doctrine is not prohibited.”

It was held at page 33 para 84 as follows---- “ the freedom to manage religious affairs is provided by Article26. This Article gives the right to every religious denomination or a section thereof to exercise the rights that it stipulates. However, this right has to be exercised in a manner that is conformity with public order, morally and health”.

It was held at para 205 on page 75 as follows—“In His Holiness Kesavananda Bharathi Sri Padagalvaru etc. Vs. State of Kerala & Another Etc.----1973 (4) CC 225, that the Constituent Assembly debates although not conclusive, yet the intention of framers of the Constitution enacting provisions of the constitution can throw light in ascertaining the intention behind such provision”.
This decision is referred only with regard to the aspect that constitutional debate indicates that with special consensus the constitutional word “Bharath” is introduced in order to signify what is meant by India. Therefore, any interpretation or the administration or the vigilance with regard to minority institutions in this country is to be followed only keeping the constitutional structure of Bharath forgetting British India.

There is a reference in this judgement on page 107 in para324 (16) which states... “the Preamble hoped to create one united integrated India.” It is also seen from this judgement on page 118 that Pandit Hridaynath Kanzru stated “I think that it is desirable in view of the importance that we have attached to various provisions accepted by us regarding the development of a feeling of unity in this country.”

Reference is also made to AIR 2005 SC 3226 (1) (AIR SC on CD-ROM 1950-2007) it was held at page 96 in para 94 as follows...

“Article 30(1) s intended to instil confidence in minorities against any executive or legislative encroachment of their right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. Article 30 (1)though styled as a right is more in the nature of protection of minorities.....Minorities being numerically less quo non-minorities may not be able to protect their religion or language and such cultural values and their educational institutions will be protected under Article 30 at the stage of law making. However, merely because Article 30(1) has been enacted minority educational institutions do not become immune from the operation of regulatory measure because the right to administer does not include the right to mal-administration...”

It was also held in this judgement at page 97 –“Any regulation framed in the national interests must necessarily apply to all educational institutions whether run by minority or the majority. Such a limitation must necessarily be read into Article 30. The right under Article 30(1) cannot be said as to overwrite the national interests or to prevent the Government from framing the regulations in that behalf.”

It is interesting to note that as reported in (2003) 7 SCC 13, the former Chief Justice of India wrote a letter to the Supreme Court to issue necessary instructions and to issue necessary directions to the State to educate its citizens in the matter of Fundamental Duties so that a correct balance may emerge between the rights and duties. This letter is treated as writ petition. While referring to Justice J.S. Varma committee on operalization of fundamental duties as accepted and a strong suggestion has been made for their early implementation. It is stated that the commission inter alia recommends “3.40-2 education begins at home, the examples they said the environment of enlightenment and tolerance that is necessary to produce good citizens cannot be subcontracted to former schooling....schemes, should therefore be framed that includes parents in social activities
that have as their objectivity, its age, old traditions. It welcomes to persecution of every faith, its virtues of tolerance of and respect for all religions and certain pride belonging to this land and being considered as Indians....It must be translated into reality...The transformation as the potential to make our Nation strong, invisible and to command the respect of the world.”
Reference is made to these judgements to analyse all this thought that has been passed in the above paragraphs and the views expressed by this author.

It was held in AIR 1992 SC 1630 (1)St. Stephens College etc,. (petitioner) vs. The University of Delhi etc. (respondent) at para93- “India is very much a Nation in tie making.” It was held at para 135- “we cannot overlook that religious fundamentalism and a linguistic parochialism leads to fissiparous tendencies and obstructs the national unity as a whole. It is necessary that minorities should join and be part and parcel of common stream of the country.”

At para 140 it is stated as follows—“A.N. Ray Chief Justice Ahmadabad St. Xaviers College Society Case laid down in the context of right of administration of minority educational institution that the best administration will reveal no trace or colour of minority....best compliment that can be paid to a minority institution is that it does not rest or proclaim its minority character.”
Therefore the mandate of nationalism and the theory of minority institutions have to be approached as follows—(1) The theory of right of citizens of Bharath and at the same time the duties of citizens of Bharath have to be taken into consideration (2) it must be remembered that the concept of minority institutions is only with regard to protection of that particular class but not for propagation of a particular class. (3)the ever watchful administration must visualize how the institution of the minority is working in order to protect nationalism. (4) the State will not be part of any particular religion, language or tradition but it should protect the national character of Bharath. Writer’s ambition: I wish and hope that Bharath Nation will be illuminating with this kind of nationalism and national unity.